Did anybody see this interesting documentary aired on Ch4? It proposed that basically all of the stories about global warming being in any way caused by mankind are entirely propganda and hyperbole.

It did have some very compelling scientiic evidence for solar influenced weather being more powerfull thatn the earths own atmosphere, however, in my opinion this was in itself very much a piece of propganda, and missed out some vital points, such as the global reliance on oil is severely harmfull as evidenced from the pursuit of the control of fossil fuels in the history of our warfare for the last 60 years. Also I may be wrong but I thought the greenhouse theory and the holes over the ozone layer had been totaslly proven beyond doubt. I havn't seen an inconvieniant truth yet though this documentary has made me inclined to watch it.

Does anybody else have any thoughts or opinions on this topic?

rheanna

haven't really looked into it but skimmed the same thing on the internet about it...

j_f_k

A weather expert I know talks about a heatwave that occurred in the 13th century that lasted for something like 50 years that was more extreme than any of the extreme warm conditions we've had in the past century.

This contradicts claims in almost all studies that the current warming trends are 'unprecedented'. I'm also told that a lot of factors like solar cycles have a far greater effect on the climate that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

jongoldsz

j_f_k wrote:

This contradicts claims in almost all studies that the current warming trends are 'unprecedented'. I'm also told that a lot of factors like solar cycles have a far greater effect on the climate that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Maybe global warming can be caused by multiple factors, but the best way to limit it would be to reduce the damage that we don't need to cause.

Davidgr1200

Do you mean that the program said that the sun is causing the Earth's temperature to rise? That would make things even worse. We not only have to cope with problems of our own making but also with problems outside of our own making. As far as I know most scientists are only taking into consideration the influence we are having, so if the sun is making things even worse then the future is going to be even more dire than the current predictions.

rheanna

something that might interest you all.. Next project to Martial Law is the Armageddon plan called Global Report 2000 suppose to annihilate 2 Billion people. Right now their behind schedule.

"I remember being flown to Aspen in a private jet and then being asked to be the Democratic Finance Chairman for the Carter election," said Green last week on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal. "I remember then saying I was a Republican and then Paul Volcker, leaned over and said "That's OK, kid. It doesn't matter, we control them both."

But besides the political talk, Green said he was privy to listening to initial chatter about the infamous Armageddon plan called Global Report 2000, a mass genocidal plan to drastically reduce to the world's population, eventually endorsed as official U.S. policy during the Carter administration.

And the Aspen global rumblings, overheard by Green, turned out to be more than just idle parlor talk by a group of drunken politicians. It turned out, according to Green, to be "the God-awful truth."

"Kissinger loved to refer to the American public as 'useless eaters' and back then all the men in that room in Aspen, including Kennedy, Volcker and the others were endorsing this Armageddon-type plan, which is now being played out right before our very eyes in Iraq and soon in Iran," warned Green, adding the next 90 days may prove to be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

"I worry about the next 90 days. All the signs are leading to nuclear war and an economic collapse."

Since the Aspen meeting, Green's made a complete about-face, snubbing his nose on the neo-cons and trying in the 1980's to expose their genocidal plans. Although his efforts to use his millions never materialized in a corrupt, neocon controlled Hollywood, he began publishing anti-establishment books in what he considered to be "the only viable outlet left to get out the truth" in a country headed in the direction of fascism and martial law.

"They even tried to end my publishing house after putting out Gerald Carroll's book, Project Seek, about the Onassis connection to the Kennedy assassination," said Green who still is fighting back against his old neo-con buddies on his informative web site at www.nohoax.com

Asked why the power brokers and war mongers haven't tried to stamp out him or his anti-neocon message, he added:

"They really don't care any more because I think the powers that be feel they have already won."

Going to guess this is probably their Global warming effect.. guess will see..yuh, going to keep a close eye on this so I can hide. hahahaha

hunterm

I think the main swindle was the program itself. The claims of the program have largely been discounted.

The main scientist who was talking about the releasing of CO2 from the oceans said he was misled by the program makers and is going to launch an official complaint through OFCOM as the fundamental arguements made by the program go against hi beliefs. He believes that Anthropogenic Climate Change IS happening.

Yantaal

i heard about this program.

that it was totally biast and didnt give any arguments for the other side, just bigged up therre opinipon and didnt even hook it up with any real evidence.

R2.DETARD

I saw this program.

It was about as biast as "An inconvenient truth", but with interviews with scientists and researchers. The documentary was littered with clips from the movie and it also mentioned clearly every time a study they cited was funded by a coal mining company or something.
i would like to see this doco again.

OutlawSpirit

it is what it is... its happened before and will happen again, humans cant stop it.. makin us think we can stop it is rubbish.. bu that's what the government do.. they make us believe so that they can acheive... they use us so they can better themselves... they dont really care about the planet or environment...

rhathar

"The Inconvenient Truth" makes liberal use of hyperbole, but its basic message is valid. I haven't seen this other documentary, but here's how I see the whole issue:

Climate fluctuations have occured before. Ice Ages and periods of cooling/warming are not unknown in the slightest, even throughout the brief period of human history we know. There is even a theory that we've been in an Ice Age for the last thousand years or so and are just now starting to come out of it (or entering a lull).

That doesn't change the fact, however, that we've seen very real consequences from our actions against the environment. Holes in the ozone has been established. Cancer rates have gone up, as has the amount of solar radiation - in direct correlation with the result of our actions!

Everything is propaganda. The real message here is that we need to clean up our act and stop trashing our own planet. Environmentalists have been trying for years to get us to listen - now they just have a topic everyone has to listen to.

Insanity

Temperatures have fluctuated in the past, but not to the extent as they have today.

kevin briggs

The scientific process always produces some uncertainty. While scientists are used to dealing with this uncertainty, the public is not. While scientists speak in terms of the likelihood of specific negative consequences, the public wants definitive answers. The result is a kind of disjuncture, making it difficult for scientific information to be effectively communicated to the public. Good science must produce caveats; good communications must be concise. This paper is an attempt to examine this interplay, using the issue of global warming as an example. How does an understanding of scientific uncertainties influence the public’s opinion about global warming? How does the media explain these uncertainties? How do multiple sides of the global warming debate attempt to influence public opinion using these uncertainties? I attempt to answer these questions using four different sources of information: 1) I examine a random sample (n=150) of newspaper articles concerning global warming over a five-year period (1996-2000), with a special emphasis on the amount of scientific conflict within each article; 2) I examine public opinion about global warming over the same five-year period, using available US national opinion data; 3) I study recent major public education efforts about global warming, produced by environmental, governmental, and industry groups, with a particular emphasis on the types of scientific claims made by each; and, 4) I describe the results of a series of questions concerning global warming in the 2002 Detroit Area Study, in particular, the connections between opinions about the serious of global warming and perceived scientific consensus are examined. The results suggest a complex interaction between scientific caveats and public opinio